Many people have taken William Kristol and others to task for suggesting that maybe the rich should be taxed at a higher rate. However, before jumping the gun and assuming that these people are liberal squishes, there needs to be a little context.

I forgot who said it (I thought it was Kristol, but I cannot find the link), but in the days after the election, a pundit looking at voter returns noted that the richest districts in the US voted inordinately for Obama. As the pundit pointed out, since Obama ran on the platform of raising taxes on the wealthy, these people voted for that tax increase. Why shouldn’t their taxes be raised, if this is what they want? Here, we are not talking about people making even $150,000 a year-we are talking about the very, very rich. This is where this meme came from.

It is quite true that it will not affect the deficit in any substantial way to raise their taxes even to confiscatory levels. However, since they wanted the bat guano Obama has been peddling, why shouldn’t they be the ones to help pay for it?

Before you squawk and say that there is a principle at stake, take a clear look at reality. It is quite doubtful that the GOP can prevent a tax increase. It may not be called a tax increase, but it is inescapable, and all our whinging will not change this fact.

As it stands, this tax will be on two groups: The middle class, and people living in red states. That is, it will fall heaviest on people who did not vote for Obama. Instead of being forced to pay for this nonsense that we did not want and did not vote for, why not use what little bargaining power we have to make Obama voters pay for it? They are, after all, the ones who think that they will benefit most from his programs. This election was nothing more than a vote to transfer money from middle class red staters to people living in blue states so they could have their free lunch. Why shouldn’t they be forced to bear this burden?

If some rich cuckoos in San Fransisco or New York put their money and support behind Obama so that the nation would go down the drain in the quest of some liberal utopia, why should we be protecting their tax rates? Why not give them what they want?

3 Responses to Soaking The Rich, Or Making Obama Supporters Pay Their Fair Share?

This probably falls into the category of “be careful what you ask for”. If it makes everyone feel better, ok, I get it. It won’t solve the problem of spending too much though. AND, that is the problem.
Thanks for the great insight. Have a blessed day.

The Republican party is dead for all practicable purposes. The Debt time bomb is ticking away. onstead of trying to kick the can a little further down the road, why shouldn’t the Republicans agree with what ever Obama and the Democrats want and let’s take the quicker death rather than the slower more painful death?

There is one point that people need to keep in mind–it appears that much of the public bought the lie that the problem was the GOP and a divided Congress. Conservatives who want to fight a losing battle to the death over some of these issues may just be setting themselves up for a greater defeat in 2016. Since Obama’s program is what the public wants, and they have been warned of the consequences, maybe the best course of action is to let them have what they want and stop fighting it so hard. Maybe then they will become serious about things and ready for change in 2016. Not saying to give Obama the matches to burn the house down–just saying that maybe it is not worth risking one’s life to put out the fire when so many other people are cheering him on and getting out the marshmallows, or just shrugging their shoulders because they don’t care. This is a hard way to go, I know. But it may be the only way.